Analysis: Implications of Marjorie Taylor Greene's Stance on Ukraine Aid

Julian Zelizer, a CNN political analyst and professor at Princeton University, shares his views in this commentary. He has authored several books, including the bestseller "Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past." The opinions expressed here are his own. To read more opinions on CNN, visit their website.

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia is making waves as she takes charge. Known for her controversial statements and belief in conspiracy theories, she is now hinting at pushing for a vote to remove Republican Speaker Mike Johnson if he proceeds with an aid package for Ukraine.

With a slim majority in the House, Johnson faces a tough situation where a single representative could force a vote to remove him. Greene is determined to cut funding to Ukraine, which would have serious consequences for NATO and the US’ commitment to the international order established after World War II.

One potential solution to appease the far right of the party is to provide funds to Ukraine in the form of a loan instead of direct assistance. However, Greene was not satisfied with this proposal and strongly criticized it, referring to it as a “heaping, steaming pile of bullsh-t.”

Wausau voters line up to cast their votes at the Wisconsin National Guard Armory in Wisconsin on Tuesday, April 2.

Wausau voters line up to cast their votes at the Wisconsin National Guard Armory in Wisconsin on Tuesday, April 2.

Gabi Broekema/Stevens Point Journal/USA Today Network

Related article

Opinion: What the Wisconsin election results tell us about November

Greene said that Johnson is a Democrat speaker, which is actually not true. Johnson is known to be one of the most conservative speakers in recent history.

This standoff highlights the significant shift in the Republican Party since the time of Ronald Reagan. Once known for urging Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," the party is now evolving into an America First party that seems to say to Russia's Vladimir Putin, "Do as you please, just stay away from us."

So, how did this transformation come about?

Long before Greene, many Republicans started to doubt international organizations such as the United Nations.

Although the party's internationalist faction had won over the neo-isolationists in the 1940s, by the mid-1960s, the Republican platform stated that they would never give up the United States' sovereignty to any international group.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, a new group of Republicans emerged who supported using military force on their own. They believed in keeping the United States involved in global affairs but were critical of organizations like the United Nations and alliances such as NATO.

In 1994, John Bolton, a neoconservative and expert in Republican foreign policy, made headlines by stating that the UN building in New York could lose ten stories without any real impact. Similarly, Jesse Helms, a Republican senator from North Carolina who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, once described foreign aid as a wasteful practice.

The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case regarding abortion pills. The hearing took place outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on March 26. Below are some photos taken from the media row. (Photo by Andrew Thomas/NurPhoto)

The US Supreme Court is hearing a case on abortion pills outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on March 26. Here are some photos of media row. (Photo by Andrew Thomas/NurPhoto)

Andrew Thomas/NurPhoto/Reuters

Related article

Conservatives have been accused of manipulating the system to involve the Supreme Court in the ongoing culture war. This skepticism among Republicans became more evident during George W. Bush's presidency. In 2001, he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement designed to reduce carbon emissions. Then, two years later, he initiated a war in Iraq based on faulty claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Despite warnings from leaders like France's Jacques Chirac that this was a mistake and a diversion from the fight against al-Qaeda, Bush proceeded with limited support from a "coalition of the willing."

President Donald Trump highlighted the failure of Bush's war in Iraq as a reason to rethink the United States' involvement in international alliances established since World War II. He argued that the war demonstrated that foreign entanglements did not benefit the national interest and should be avoided. Instead, Trump promoted the "America First" approach, which had typically been linked to isolationism, xenophobia, and reactionary domestic politics. By championing these ideas, Trump not only brought them into the national spotlight but also pushed his party, especially the House Caucus, towards more extreme positions. In doing so, he undermined his own party's tradition of opposing autocratic leaders like Putin.

In 2012, Mitt Romney criticized President Obama for his stance on Russia. However, in 2016, Trump's campaign took a different approach to foreign policy, ushering in a significant change for the Republican Party.

During his presidency, Trump publicly supported Putin at the Helsinki summit in 2018, even casting doubt on the findings of American intelligence agencies. Recently, Trump made controversial remarks suggesting that he would support Russia attacking NATO allies who were not fulfilling their financial obligations, with little pushback from fellow Republican lawmakers.

With Greene holding Johnson accountable for aid to Ukraine, the GOP's transformation is nearly finished. It's evident that Trump has reshaped the party and a new generation of Republicans who support MAGA is gaining control.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter for free.

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Johnson may be able to find a narrow compromise to pass a funding package without facing job loss, but the GOP is shifting towards a clear foreign policy direction. The America First group is gaining influence, marking a departure from traditional Republican hawks, and the impact of this shift is significant.

This political struggle extends beyond the Republican Party and could lead to the quick deterioration of long-standing international alliances. These alliances have been crucial in reducing the risk of war and opposing authoritarian foreign leaders seeking to expand their oppressive regimes.

If Greene and her colleagues win now, or even in the next faceoff over Ukraine, we will be entering a new, uncertain, and even more dangerous era.

Editor's P/S:

The article exposes the dramatic shift within the Republican Party, highlighting the rise of isolationist and America First sentiments. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's challenge to Speaker Mike Johnson over aid to Ukraine exemplifies this transformation. The article traces this shift back to the 1960s, with the emergence of skepticism towards international organizations and a preference for unilateral action. The influence of neoconservatives and the Iraq War further fueled this trend, culminating in Trump's promotion of "America First" policies.

This shift has profound implications for international relations. The Republican Party's traditional support for NATO and opposition to authoritarian leaders like Putin is eroding. The article warns that if Greene and her allies succeed, the US will enter a more uncertain and dangerous era, characterized by the decline of long-standing alliances and the emboldening of oppressive regimes.